There only TWO things in life that have NO solution: DEATH and the MIDDLE EAST. I feel really tempted to add a third item to that short list: traffic in the city of Los Angeles, CA, USA. This blog will explore ways to tackle this apparently unfixable and mind-boggling problem... For some strange reason, I feel like The Blues Brothers: "I'm on a mission from God" to fix L.A. traffic!! :-)
I deal with a lot of traffic accidents in my practice, but I have yet to hear the term "unprotected light."
What seems to be common these days is for people to receive a citation for making a right turn at a red light. Although, they are legal in California, drivers are required to stop (like at a stop sign) before making their right turn.
I don't know how many technical terms there are to refer to this, but as far as I know, an "unprotected light," or perhaps more rightly, an "unprotected left," is a green light that allows you to turn (usually left) without an exclusive right-of-way. In other words, you can turn (usually left) but only after all oncoming traffic coming straight at you in the opposite direction to yours has passed. A "protected left turn light" would be a green light with an arrow giving you exclusive (e.i. protected) right-of-way to turn left. There are very few such "protected left turn lights" in L.A., and it is my contention that that fact contributes to the traffic problem as I explained in several posts.
The right terminology is only incidental. Call it what you will. It is the concept, and its effect on traffic, what matters...
With such an attitude, though, I very much doubt that any traffic problem in L.A., or in any other complex metro area, will ever be solved.
ANY ideas, even the "worst ideas ever," are better than none. And I've said it before and I'll say it again, this unbelievably complex and multi-faceted problem of traffic will never be solved unless a mosaic of solutions is TRIED, at least TRIED, to see what works and what doesn't. We'll never know if it will work unless we try. No one solution will work. There is no panacea to the traffic problem. Multiple ideas in a well-orchestrated attempt will need to be tried.
Sure, there is a cost in trying any idea. But who says that it has to be implemented in a large area at a high cost. It should be tried in a small area first and at the lowest possible cost. And go from there...
L.A. is nearly 4 times the size of Portland and with a larger commuter work force. Biking works for local trips but L.A. is too spread out for this to work.
See, this is the problem. If you look at everything from an "all-or-nothing,""black-and-white," "the glass-is-half-full-or-half-empty" perspective, then you'll miss the "something's," the "shades of grey," and the "bottles" from which you could "fill that glass"!
Extreme situations call for extreme solutions or any solution that helps. In such a situation, everything and anything helps; every little bit helps. Obviously, this reader hasn't read the blog. The blog calls for a mosaic of solutions, because, obviously, NO onesingle solution will ever work or will ever be implemented.
No one is suggesting that you bike from Santa Monica to Hollywood. But if I remember right, the MTA Rapid Red buses do have bike racks on front. You could actually load up your bike onto the bus on the bike rack, ride all the way to wherever the Rapis Bus (or any other bus) takes you, and then bike from there to wherever you need to go. It is perfectly do-able! I myself did it in Austin. And people are actually doing it in L.A.
Also, this kind of "solution" will only work, obviously, at the local level. Santa Monica could have its own Portland-like (or Paris-like) biking program. Westwood should have its own. Beverly Hills should have its own. West Hollywood its own, and so on and so forth... Thinking city-wide and in centralized, LA-mandated terms, will, of course, defeat any such idea. The best ideas start locally and spread out as word-of-mouth and benefits make the rounds.
This is the kind of defeatist mentality ("Biking works for local trips but L.A. is too spread out for this to work. ") that keeps any solution or solutions from being tried or implemented.
Back in the 16th century, the Spanish conquistadores actually thought that California was an island! One of the early Spanish explorers started the idea and it just got perpetuated until they discovered that, hey, it wasn't true at all. Will Durant once wrote that "everything is impossible until it is done" (Obama anybody?). So don't ever say that "L.A. is too [whatever] for this to work. " Try it. Give it a real good try. And then go from there.
I think this whole nation (especially under this new visionary Kennedy-like administration) and this whole world are going to be moving in that direction: the direction of trying what has never been tried before, the direction of finding solutions to problems that had never thought possible before. That's the only way this earth will be able to support a 6 billion or a 10 billion or a who-knows-how-many billion population world that owns who knows how many millions or billions of automobiles.
-Old streets that were never meant for buses (let alone the mega buses, that are stretched twice as long. Say on Vermont in Koreatown. Just completely insane to run these huge buses all day on these old dilapidated streets.Say Vermont and Washington. It creates chaos on the right lane.
-The freeways are from the 50's. Hopeless. The pasadena freeway, lol. Its a joke in 2008.
-Overzealous builders.
-Lack of leadership.
-Huge gap in the rich and the poor. Terrible schools. If 30 or 40% of highschool kids drop out, that must keep adding pressure on the bus system. And lots of other factors.
He is right, of course, and I agree and thank this reader for his comment. I am sure, though, that each one of us can come up with a list of factors contributing to the problem.
But like I always said, the only reason I pointed out the reasons for the problem, or the only reason I created the blog in the first place, was to come up with SOLUTIONS to the problem, not to "rant and rave" about it like some may have believed. I was, and I am, only interested in SOLUTIONS to the problem. I really see no other reason to talk about it. Academic discussions can be left to the academics and their hypothetical but impractical "solutions" can be left where they belong: in academia. Real solutions to real life problems should be seriously considered.
I believe this is a serious problem, perhaps one of the most serious problems facing metropolitan areas the world over this century. Somebody somewhere in positions of power, influence and authority should start making it a priority to find ways to solve it.
Readers, I'm in the process of relocating to LA from Washington, DC (which has its own traffic problems). My fiancee has accepted a position in West Hollywood, and we're looking to live in the Fairfax, mid-wilshire neighborhood. Great for her, and I like the city, so I'm happy. I've been interviewing with a company based in Grenada Hills, and it seems like a really good fit for me. However, it's all the way up there. Since I'm not from LA, I have a few questions:Is the 405 just as bad northbound in the mornings and southbound in the evenings as the other way? It seems that most of the traffic would be from the valley to west LA, but I don't know. Is there any other good way to get over the hollywood hills? Here in DC, I cycle commute, and 20 miles each way isn't that big of a deal, but that probably isn't an option when I have a mountain range between me and my destination. Any public transit options? MTA says I need to leave at 6:50 to get to work by 9:00 via public transit, which is ridiculous. Or is this idea hopeless and should I focus my search in the LA basin and forget about the valley?
Any advice would be great, feel free to drop me an e-mail at corey@lanummusic.com
I haven't updated that blog in quite a while since I really don't live in L.A. anymore. While I lived there, I got really interested in the traffic challenges the city poses--as you can probably read from my blog (I'm still interested in the issue, but like just like with everything else, too many people take this stuff too personally so any comment you make on the situation is taken as a reflection on them or their city of their country...)
I hope the readers of my blog (if there any still!) have offered some suggestions. But let me offer you some. I know the L.A. area really well and I was an expert at "scurrying" around traffic jams and finding my way to where I was going as fast as possible.
If you are going to be living in "the Fairfax, mid-wilshire neighborhood," and you are going to be possibly working in Grenada Hills, it would be absolutely crazy to even think of taking the 405 to get to the Valley. I guess this is all theoretical for you right now and you have been looking at a lot of maps and talking to the MTA on the phone. FORGET ALL THAT! The reality on the ground in L.A. is totally different from what any of that may suggest.
First of all, if you are in "the Fairfax, mid-wilshire neighborhood," the best way to get to the Valley is (yes, you hit the nail in the head yourself!) OVER THE MOUNTAIN! Go to Crescent-Heights (which is just a few blocks West of Fairfax) and go NORTH. On the corner with Sunset Blvd., Crescent Heights will turn into Laurel Canyon Road. GO UP THE MOUNTAIN AND DOWN INTO THE VALLEY on Laurel Canyon. Bear in mind, though, that you may not be the only one with the same idea! There may be a little jam of sorts in both directions since Lauren Canyon is only a two-lane road, one lane in each direction. There is a bus, though, the 218, if I remember right, which, by the way, runs on Fairfax, turns left on Santa Monica Blvd. and then goes up Cresecent Heights and Laurel Canyon and into the valley. Once in the Valley, there are Rapid Buses going up and down Ventura Blvd.
Another way to get to the Valley relatively quickly from "the Fairfax, mid-wilshire neighborhood," would be to take Highland all the way to the 101 and from there north to Grenada Hills. The 101 is nearly always jammed from Hollywood to Downtown in both directions. But there is a chance that early in the morning it may be okay in the north direction.
If you can help it, STAY OFF THE 405!! It's nearly always jammed in both directions from LAX to the Valley, except early on Sunday mornings and after 9:00 or 10:00pm at night. I nearly always avoided it like the plague. But that's me. I have a very, very low tolerance level for traffic jams. They drive me insane! If you don't mind them, knock yourself out by driving on the 405! It wouldn't make any sense at all, though, for you to try to get to Grenada Hills by going West on Wilshire all the way to the 405 and then taking the 405 North! It'd be absolute madness to do that! It'd make NO sense at all!
If you want my advice, don't make any decisions until you actually LIVE the reality on the ground in L.A. This "aerial reconnaissance" thing you're doing of this highly congested city is okay to familiarize yourself a bit with the geography of the place, but there's nothing like actually living it. Traffic is a reality of life in L.A. and a challenge to all its residents. It'll become a part of your life, a part of your very psyche. You cannot do anything without weighing traffic into the equation, and even then it'll haunt your dreams at night. Sometimes you'll wonder whether it's even worth it. Still, millions of people live with it everyday. I myself couldn't take it anymore. Before I moved out, I was living and working in the same area (working near LAX and living in El Segundo. That little "town," by the way, is one of L.A.'s best kept secrets, nested there between a major international airpoirt and an oil refinery!).
Oh, since you are married, one thing you and your wife may want to do, is try to take advantage of the many HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes on most freeways where only cars with two or more people can go. Watch out, though, for the lane-splitting bikers on their motorcycles! They have a right to ride the HOV lanes and they zoom in and out of ALL lanes at hair-raising speeds! (see one of my blog entries on lane-splitting!)
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask me. I know the L.A. area like the palm of my hand! I'd be happy to help you get "settled in" traffic-wise!
According to this article in reuters - Telecommuting found to boost morale, cut stress - 46 studies on telecommuting find it not only good for employees and their employers but also for the urban communities they live in.
And that's the best part for our purposes here: they found that telecommuting cuts down on traffic and eases congestion in metropolitan areas. If your boss needs convincing, here's some ammunition for you!
So pass this article around to everyone in your office, especially the "big bosses"!
The newly elected President of France, Nichola Sarkozy, nicknamed "Sarko, l'Americain," ("Sarko, the American") is in love with all things American, so it's now safe again to say, "Vive la France!"
And "Vive la France!" indeed! For this is a wonderful idea!
Check it out!
Journeys | Paris "Finding Liberté on Two Wheels" By ERIC RAYMAN Published: October 14, 2007 in The New York Times Paris’s self-service bicycle docking stations make it easy even for fresh-off-the-plane Americans to explore the city in a way that you can’t by foot, by Métro or by taxi.
Magnifique!
These "Vélibs", as the bikes are called, and "Vélibiens", as their riders are called, are a great idea! (...kind of like those push-carts one rents at airports to haul one's luggage to the car rental. Same concept, basically.)
This French idea might even play in Peoria: ooh-lah-lah!
But will it ever play in car-city L.A.?!?
How about tapping one or two of those Silicon Valley zillionaires who don't know what to do with all that money to finance it?
Here's an idea for you.
If they set up shuttle services between the major and most touristic cities (Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Venice), and they set up these "self-service bicycle docking stations" in each city, tourists and locals could ride the shuttles and once they got there and off the shuttle buses, they could simply grab one of these bikes and off they'd go!
The actual impact on traffic might be insignificant. But the improvement on quality of life, especially for tourists, might be enormous...
Yes, I know what you're going to say: "This ain't Europe. They will rip off the bikes or their parts out there." All I gotta say to that is an old cliche: "where there's a will, there's a way..."
Here's an interesting New York Times article on a technological device that can help drivers: Navigating With Feedback From Fellow Drivers (By Roy Furchgott - Published: October 18, 2007)
Dash Navigation's Dash Express "not only receives location data from the satellites of the Global Positioning System, like other navigation units, but it also broadcasts information about its travels back to the Dash network."
In other words, this device offers GPS-and-other-driver-assisted driving. By collecting data from other devices on the road, the system can alert you to what's up ahead. It won't work well, though, until there are enough units out there on the road.
Cool idea--if it works... Anything that can improve traffic is welcome on this blog...
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Protected and unprotected lefts revisited: theory ...":
I was in an accident in SanFrancisco recently; the driver of the other car reported that he was going straight at an unprotected light; what does an unprotected light mean?
Posted by Anonymous to L.A. traffic sucks: Let's fix it! at 9:10 AM
-----------------------------------------------
When you come to an intersection, you have three options: 1. Go straight 2. Turn right 3. Turn left
But if it's a 4-way intersection, there are cars that also want to do the same thing (go straight, turn right, turn left) at the three other corners. What do you do? The only way to keep traffic from becoming a big mess is by regulating who goes first.
How do you do that?
With a...
1. Traffic light 2. Stop sign (4-way)
A traffic light regulates traffic by PROTECTING YOUR RIGHT OF WAY:
1. Green: Go! Your right of way to go in this direction is protected by the green light. 2. Yellow: Caution! Be ready to stop! (NOT in L.A., though! In L.A. a yellow light means, "GO AS FAST AS YOU CAN BEFORE IT TURNS TO RED!! TAKE NO PRISONERS!") 3. Red: Stop!
At some intersections, it's possible or not possible to turn right or left for some reason. When the light turns green, it usually means that traffic can flow STRAIGHT on the same street in both PARALLEL directions. Because traffic is flowing in one direction (say, north-south at a particular intersection), that means that traffic perpendicular to it (east-west traffic) is blocked by a red light. So if you have a green light, you can go straight, and--in MOST states--you can turn right (Unless there is a "NO RIGHT TURN ON A RED LIGHT" sign at that intersection).
How then do you turn left?
At most intersections in L.A. you have to wait for the traffic flowing in the opposite direction on the same street you're on to stop before you can make a left. THIS IS CALLED AN UNPROTECTED LEFT TURN.
WHY?
Because your right of way is NOT "protected" by a GREEN ARROW light. If there is NO GREEN ARROW LIGHT at an intersection that means that you can make a left turn ONLY on a UNPROTECTED turn. That is, you HAVE TO WAIT until the traffic flowing in the opposite diection to yours on the same street STOPS or slows down enough for you to have a chance to make a left turn.
If you have stopped at a RED LIGHT and you need to make a RIGHT turn, and in your state making a right turn at a red light is legal, then I think this is also an UNPROTECTED turn. Because your don't have the right of way here. Traffic coming perpendicular to you does! So if you want to turn right on a red light, you must wait until traffic coming perpendicular to you stops or slows down to give you a chance to make an UNPROTECTED right turn at a red light.
So, as far as I know, an "unprotected light" means turning left or right without having the right of way but allowed on the condition that you use caution and wait for traffic to stop or slow down before making a turn.
I have never heard of "going straight at an unprotected light". Unless he means that he was "running a yellow light". Or unless he means that he was "running a red light"!
As far as I know, the ONLY WAY you can go "straight at an unprotected light" is by "running a red light"!
As I explained above, the ONLY TWO "unprotected" directions you can go are LEFT or RIGHT. How can you possibly go "straight at an unprotected light"?
Perhaps he means a YELLOW light. Perhaps the ONLY light you can go straight on an "unprotected" light is the YELLOW light. In L.A. NO ONE respects this --that's why "unprotected lefts" are so difficult to make there-- but, technically, when the light turns YELLOW you're supposed to slow down and be ready to come to a stop before the intersection. So, technically, if you go straight on a yellow light, you're really going "straight on an unprotected light"? The YELLOW light means "caution, get ready to stop!", so if you go straight, you're actually going "unprotected" because you don't really have the right of way anymore (except in L.A.! In L.A. YELLOW means "GREEN" to most people!).
One of the Newsmagazines (20/20, Dateline NBC, 48 Hours...) had a report about all the terrible accidents that have happened because of people "running a yellow light." I'm really amazed that there are not more accidents in L.A. because of this. I think the reason there aren't is that motorists making a left have become resigned to waiting and making sure that ALL cars have come to a stop before making a left turn on an unprotected light. If they thought,"Okay, light's turned yellow, those guys must slow down and come to a stop right now! It's my turn to go! I have the right of way!" I'm sure there would be millions more accidents in L.A.
I don't know the details of your accident. If you were "making an unprotected left turn" and he was "running a yellow light," then I really don't know who's at fault. Perhaps you both were. If the light was turning yellow when he decided to go straight, he should have slowed down and come to a stop. If you were trying to make a left at an unprotected light (NO green left arrow), you should have WAITED until ALL cars came to a stop or traffic slowed down enought to give you a good chance to make a turn.
In such situations, the best thing is to drive defensively, not aggressively: WAIT. BE PATIENT. WHENEVER YOU ARE AT AN INTERSECTION MAKING A TURN, USE CAUTION. If you were both aggressive and impatient, then an accident is the result.
Very interesting, to say the least. Actually, very enlightening.
What does an interview with a media executive have to do with traffic in L.A., you might ask?
Well, for one, Mr. Karmazin talked, among many other things, about his admiration for Ted Turner and for his idea to start a 24-hour all-news cable channel (CNN). I don't know if any of you has realized it yet, but satellite radio is to terrestrial radio what cable TV was to network TV in the 80's: the floodgates of information (e.i., content) are about to open wide on radio like they did on TV when cable came on the scene. The possibilities to disseminate information are enormous. And information (an enlightened public, a well-informed public, and intelligent public) is the key to improving ANYTHING in this country. Traffic can never improve as long as drivers are unaware of what's going on around them in real time.
So I thought: what about a satellite radio channel dedicated to traffic?
I looked on the Sirius website and sure enough, they've got one: SIRIUS Traffic. You need to be subscribed to Sirius satellite radio and you need a compatible navigation system. Other than that, "SIRIUS Traffic provides real-time information on accidents, traffic flow, construction, and road closures for only $3.99/month, when added to your existing SIRIUS Satellite Radio subscription."
If you subscribe to Satellite Radio through SIRIUS, adding traffic might be a good idea.
Traffic is not the only thing that needs to flow for congestion to improve in L.A. and elsewhere. INFORMATION is equally important. And what better way to make information flow than technology?
Technology is one of the key ingredients to any creative solution to the traffic problem. Satellite Radio may well be part of that creative solution. Consider it.
In America, the best ideas to get a message across come from the advertising world!
Saturn's "Rethink American" ad campaign, as crafted by Deutsch/LA ( Saturn Says, 'Rethink American'), to promote their new hybrids, is the perfect key to a potentially successful ad campaign to transform L.A.
But of course! The power of advertising!
In America, a commercial is worth 100,000 blogs!
RETHINK CAPACITY [images of people car pooling, riding public transportation]
RETHINK MOBILITY [images of people telecommuting, working at home, walking, biking, riding scooters/Vespas, motorcycles]
RETHINK L.A. [images of a traffic-free city where traffic flows beautifully]
We can talk about traffic all day long in a thousand posts, but it won't make that much of a difference if no one ever does a thing about it. So we need not only creative solutions to a very difficult problem, we also need a philosophy of activism. What are we going to do about it?
Commeting on the 54th verse of the Tao in a chapter called "Living As If Your Life Makes a Difference," Dr. Wayne Dyer, in his book "Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life: Living the Wisdom of the Tao," writes,
"Choose an area to concentrate on making a difference.
"Don't entertain doubt about your impact on the world; instead, develop a VISION for Earth and convince yourself that you are perfectly capable of contributing to this VISION. whether it's grandiose or small. See a world without hatred, disrespect, or violence; where the environment is respected and cared for; and where cancer, AIDS, starvation, child abuse, weapons of all kinds, or any other detrimental or demeaning scenarios disappear.
"The anthropologist Margaret Mead addressed this idea in the following observation: 'Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.'" [p. 264 - emphasis mine]
There are a lot of people out there who say that anybody who feels this way or acts this way is probably just a "dumb shit." Well, isn't that what the Pharisees (perhaps in other words) called Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago? "hey, look at that crazy 'dumb shit' going around saying he is the 'son of God.'" Whether you believe he was or not (I personally don't), whether you believe he ever existed or not (I personally am not sure), the impact this man --or his name and what he preached-- has had upon the world is undeniable. His impact has lasted for over 20 centuries--over 2,000 years. And like that rock musical says, "In 2,000 BC, Israel had no mass communication!" How did he ever make it SO BIG?!? To begin with, he had 12 darn good activists and some who could write like it's no one's business. So even in this age of unfrettered mass communication where you--or anybody--can upload your videos to YouTube and broadcast yourself to the whole wide world in minutes; even in this age of raging cynicism where "Who cares!" is the anthem of the day; it's still true that anybody who has ever changed the world, for better or for worse, was called a "dumb shit" at one time or another. We are in very good company here.
Whatever contribution--large or small, important or insignificant--I am making with this blog, I am happy to be making it.
For good or bad, for better or for worse, ideas--great ideas--have a way of taking a life of their own and becoming unstoppable. If there is any good, any good at all, in anything we are saying here, someone will find it and use it to make a difference.
My heart goes out to Los Angeles and its people. Their lives should, or could, be so much better... Whether it will never be what it once was, it doesn't matter. If 20 million people demand that it become something better TODAY before it becomes something worse TOMORROW, believe me, IT WILL. And all it takes is ONE person to start making a difference. The rest is up to YOU...
In LA Traffic Panel Discussion - Volume II, Tom Rubin, former "Administrator for Public Transport" in Southern California says the following,
So what we have is a situation where if we made a decision we aren't going to add capacity, we have to either use what we have smarter, or as has been said [by Mr. Moore], ration it through various means. And this being the United States, where capitalism--I don't think--has totally completely died, tolls are very realistic. And tolls, particularly time of day tolls, will encourage people to change their behavior.
"One of the things that has happened that is the single most significant thing that has happened in U.S. transportation is work-at-home. You take a look at all the model splits: how many people are driving, how many people are car pooling, how many people taking transit, time after time after time, year after year, area after area, there are only two things that are going on: single passenger vehicles and work-at-home. And as the technology increases and as that way of work increases, that is going to change as well more and more.
"We are responding to it, but it's not a question we can't do it, we can't add capacity. We can. The problem is that we have decided NOT to."
Don't you find it especially miffing that this former beauraucrat, who's probably partly responsible for the current mess, and who does not even admit it or take responsibility for it, much less apologize for it, is not even smart enough to leave the word "capitalism" out of it when proposing such a bad idea of "tolls" as the only realistic solution to making people "change their behavior"? At least, he should be smart enough and leave the word "capitalism" out of it! I guess he doesn't realize how he's giving himself away completely by having said that.
I'm telling you. This is the last person in the world you should listen to for solutions to this problem. He is exactly the kind of person Dylan was referring to when he sang, "Don't follow leaders/Watch the parking meters"! Follow him and your "parking meter" is going to go UP, WAY UP, in the form of "tolls" designed to make you "change your behavior."
Does he mean to say that you cannot educate people in America?
Does he mean to say that you cannot appeal to their sense of civic duty?
Does he mean to say that NO ONE in L.A. would give up driving for the good of the entire urban community?
If so, then it is hopeless, completely hopeless. Because it is a fact that there will always be enough people in the world with enough cash to pay ALL the tolls in the world, and NOTHING, NOTHING IN THE WORLD --not the high price of gas, not tolls of ANY kind-- will ever deter them from driving.
Have they ever tried? Have they ever mounted a citywide campaign in all media to educate drivers and appeal to their sense of civic suty to help solve the problem?
Have they ever offered L.A. drivers a REALLY GOOD and REALLY RELIABLE altervative to driving?
He is also overlooking the fact that the driver demographic in L.A. is not only made up of commuters and truck drivers and service van drivers and bus drivers and people running errands, but also of TOURISTS and BUSINESS PEOPLE in car rentals. Thousands of them pour into L.A. every day, and they would be willing to pay any toll they have to pay to get where they are going. The out of town trucks just passing through on their way north or south on the interstate freeways, will have to pay tolls unless you limit their access to the freeways going through town to nighttime.
Tolls would be self-defeating, tax regressive, and in the end, useless. They would have to raise them more and more to REALLY make some people change their behavior.
I only have one thing to tell you. Or better yet, I'll let Bob Dylan himself tell it to you: "YOU DON'T NEED A WEATHERMAN TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS!"
Bob Dylan - Subterranean Homesick Blues
-------------------------------------------------- Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...
Here's the second part of that LA Traffic Panel Discussion: Ever-Lasting Gridlock? that took place at the L.A. Press Club on March 29 of this year.
And here's my response:
Mr. Johnston starts out with a very basic question:
"Why is it that when there's more traffic it moves more slowly?"
Mr. Moore, the USC professor of civil engineering and "expert on the technical side," replies:
"What transportation engineers really focus on is flow.
"At very low densities and high speeds, you got low flow, and you got very densities and very low speeds and you got low flow. And it's that region between jam density and no density at all where your flow would be theoretically maximized. And that's for most folks a low level of service. That's in the neighborhood of, say, 35 miles an hour--faily congested conditions in the minds of most folks. So when I'm driving around in the freeways, I'm thinking in terms of flow. [...]"
Mr. Johnston then asks why the 101 always gets jammed from Cahuenga to downtown.
Mr. Moore replies that "what you're seeing is a period of extended demand that exceeds capacity." That's why. And you have only three options:
"[1] You can add capacity--That's an option. That's expensive. [2] You can better manage the capacity you have. [3] We can try to suppress the demand.
Short of that I don't see any avenue for improvement. [...]"
Got it?
That's the technical assessment. In other words, the choices are stark. Expect to drive not faster than 35 mph on freeways in L.A. because at such high densities (a lot of cars on the freeway), drivers drive too defensively and cannot keep up higher speeds.
Then Mr. Johnston asks, "What about the issue of... if we build more roads, we simply generate more traffic."
Mr. Rubin "would be happy to take that." Here's his answer. Read (or listen) CAREFULLY.
"We can build our way our congestion. We have just decided NOT to!
"The problem we have is,... these are taken so seriously: the cost restrictions and the [sic] restrictions, that it becomes almost impossible in this day and age to think of adding capacity in an urbanized area. In many cases it can be done and it has been done successfully. But the limitations are there. And you add the statutory requirements.
"At the present time, in an area undergoing congestion, which therefore has some air quality problems [....], it is virtually impossible to get permission from the federal government to either build a new freeway or add general-purpose lane capacity to existing freeways. What you can do is add an HOV lane. That's the exception. So in many cases, we have seen HOV lanes being added, not necessarily because they're the best solution, but because it's the one thing you can build [...]
So what we have is a situation where if we made a decision we aren't going to add capacity, we have to either use what we have smarter, or as has been said [by Mr. Moore], ration it through various means. And this being the United States, where capitalism--I don't think--has totally completely died, tolls are very realistic. And tolls, particularly time of day tolls, will encourage people to change their behavior.
"One of the things that has happened that iis the single most significant thing that has happened in U.S. transportation is work-at-home. You take a look at all the model splits: how many people are driving, how many people are car pooling, how many people taking transit, time after time after time, year after year, area after area, there are only two things that are going on: single passenger vehicles and work-at-home. And as the technology increases and as that way of work increases, that is going to change as well more and more.
"We are responding to it, but it's not a question we can't do it, we can't add capacity. We can. The problem is that we have decided not to."
Let me get this straight:
We can add capacity, but we have just decided NOT TO in order to tax people with tolls to change their behavior?!?
If anybody out there gets any other conclusion from what he said, let me know! Because every which way you look at it, that's the ONLY conclusion one can get from what he said.
If I understand this correctly, in a country where capitalism "[hasn't] totally completely died," they CAN but they have decided NOT to add capacity. Why? In order to TAX you and make you change your behavior that way!
It may be a very "capitalistic" solution, but it's not a very fair and not a very "democratic" solution. We all know what would happen if tolls were implemented as a cure for traffic congestion. The rich and the upper-middle-class, and to a large extent the middle-class, would get to ride the freeways in absolute comfort at whatever speed they want. But the minimum-wage earners and the poor would have to take the streets to get to work, thus spilling the congestion from the freeways onto the strets. Tolls implemented to cure congestion, as Mr Rubin sugests, would be a form of regressive taxation that would affect the minimum-wage earners and the poor. Just like the high price of gas has not affected high and middle-income bracket wage earners but it has affected the the minimum-wage earners and the poor, tolls would affect the minimum-wage earners and the poor.
Moreover, can you imagine the jams, the congestion, before every toll booth? In L.A.? Are you kidding me? Not everybody would have a fast-lane electronic tag to get through the toll booth fast enough. Want proof? To take the Bay Bridge into San Francisco, you have to pay toll. Almost always, at certain times of day, there's an unbelievable JAM right there before the toll booth. And to require every car to purchase a tag would really mean that only those of high or middle-income level would be able to fork out the extra $50 or $60 a month to purchase a tag just to drive on a freeway. So THEY, the minimum-wage earners and the poor, would create a jam before the toll booth every day.
DO NOT LET THEM SELL YOU SUCH A DUBIOUS, SHODDY BAG OF GOODS, SUCH AN IDIOTIC IDEA.
You already pay enough tax to maintain freeways and roads. DO NOT let them now TAX YOUR RIGHT to drive on those freeways and roads. You should OPPOSE this idea with everything you've got. Pressure them to come up with REAL solutions, not IDIOTIC ideas.
See? This is what happens: politicans, under pressure from the electorate to find solutions to problems, put then pressure on these beauraucrats and academics, so-called "experts," to come up with solutions, and this is "the best" they can come up with: IDIOTIC IDEAS.
He may be a "Nobel Prize winner," but he should know that he is proposing an idiotic idea. And, as an economist, he should know that tolls would be a form of regressive taxation on lower-income earners and the poor.
Moreover, I think that to frame it in these dire, stark, black-and-white terms -- IT'S EITHER NO MORE CAPACITY OR TOLLS, MAKE YOUR CHOICE! -- is rather pathetic from people from whom we should expect REALLY CREATIVE SOLUTIONS. (For a really creative approach to solving the traffic congestion problem on the Westside, see my post: WESTSIDE SOLUTION AT A GLANCE)
DON'T YOU THINK? -------------------------------- Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...
L.A. needs to transform itself. The L.A. traffic and congestion problem cannot be solved without L.A. transforming itself into a more walkable, bikeable, scooterable, motorcycleable, publictransportable city. There's no question about that.
Patchwork will not do it. "Tolling" and/or "increasing capacity" on the freeways will not do it. If your arteries are clogged, you reduce your cholesterol intake and exercise more. L.A.'s arteries are clogged. What will it take--a "heart attack" (an earthquake)--to wake everybody up?
L.A. and surrounding cities need politicians with GREAT VISION, who can sell that VISION to the public (angelenos), to the politicians at the federal, state and local levels, and to the urban planners and developers. A vision of a city of the future, a city that doesn't feel and look like the L.A. of nightmarish visions of the future like Blade Runner's, a city made up of vibrant walkable, bikeable communities full of highly mobile and highly community-conscious residents who think not only of themselves but of their neighbors and of their entire urban area as well.
That should be the vision, the blueprint, for an L.A. of the future, and that vision needs to be born now, today, not 20 years from now. At the rate it's going, in the year 2025, L.A. will be a highly unliveable place. That film Blade Runner will go from cult sci-fi classic status to prophetic. Of course, journalists like Ted Balaker will want to downplay such pessimistic assessments and call them "fashionable defeatism." It is people like him who have a voice in the media who should be calling for this vision instead of offering "band-aid-to-plug-a-leak-in-the-dam" ideas that are just patchwork solutions.
L.A. needs to transform itself.
That vision may not be popular with the gas companies, it may not be popular with the car companies, it may not be popular with the self-centered, self-serving, ego-driven set of drivers who think their needs or desires come first at the expense of everybody else. But this is not about popularity. It's about facing a tough reality and making some tough decisions for the good of the entire urban community.
L.A. needs to transform itself.
The politician who can sell that vision is the man or woman of the hour, the man or woman of the future...
And not only that... the politician who can sell this vision to the voters, to the politicians and to the beauraucrats in Washington, Sacramento and City Hall, to the urban planners and developers; the politician who can challenge the power interests that will oppose this vision with all their might-- the whole "oil/auto-industrial-complex" -- is a politician with real cojones... ---------------------------------------------- Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...
1 minute and 55 seconds of the video clip are dedicated to the reception: people snacking, drinking and mingling to the tune of the Beatles' "Baby, You Can Drive My Car." Then the three panelists are introduced by Mr. Johnston and given an opportunity to give a "brief summary of the crucial issue facing us this evening." This is where it gets interesting... Watch!
So Mr. Tom Rubin goes first, and what he has to say in this brief intro. is very interesting: "Transportation decisions in the United States really have virtually nothing to do with transportation. And that pretty much drives the results. When you're making transportation decisions ignoring transportation impacts, [you get] a transportation system that reflects that in its performance."
That's a very interesting observation, but what the heck does it mean?
If transportation decisions are not based on transportation issues, then WHAT, pray tell, are they based on? And WHO makes them? WHO's accountable?
Obviously, this is the approach that's behind the current mess (and a former insider like Mr. Rubin should know better than anybody else).
So right off the bat, we get confirmation of something we've been saying over and over here on this blog, that at the policy decision-making level, a paradigm shift has to take place. The whole approach to how these decisions are made and who makes them needs to change. Or the "high expectations" that Mr. Balaker trumps about later are an illusion. NOTHING will change for the better or for the long-term without this fundamental change.
Then it's Mr. Balaker's turn (we don't know whether Mr. Moore got a chance to have his say on "the issue facing us this evening" or whether he got skipped over or simply cut in favor of the reception). Mr. Balaker makes two points we have also been harping on here in this blog since April 2006, perhaps not in the same words, but in exactly the same meaning and spirit:
1. "The point I want to make is that mobility matters... These days the term 'geographically undesirable' is becoming more and more commonplace among people who date in urban areas... Mobility is good." 2. "We've fallen into this fashionable defeatism where we think that there's nothing that can be done about traffic. ... Congestion is something that can be triumphed over. And I think it's about time we did that."
Of course "mobility matters" and "mobility is good." No one is denying that. What you have is a population in denial over whether everybody who owns a car should be on the road at the same time every day. Freedom of mobility should entail some responsibility. If you don't have to drive, why drive? If you need to get some milk at the convenience store two blocks away and you can walk, why not walk it? Why not ride your bike? After all, it's good for you! Perhaps a study should be done on the relationship between heart disease and obesity and driving in America. The French and the Italians are thinner and live longer and healthier perhaps because they walk more.
What Mr. Balaker is, in fact, saying is that mobility equals driving. That's not true at all. The only way to attain mobility is not necessarily by driving. The problem of traffic and congestion in American cities such as L.A. will never be solved until people in L.A. are given as many options as possible OTHER THAN DRIVING to attain the mobility they need and desire (How about, for instance, creating more walkable "downtowns" like Santa Monica's that can be easily accessible by clean and reliable transportation like the Big Blue Bus? That's the kind of mobility L.A. needs).
As to point No. 2 --"Congestion... can be triumphed over"-- of course it can! But it won't be easy and it will take a concerted effort by policy-makers and drivers working together to make it happen. There's no magic formula. Neither "tolling" nor "increasing capacity" alone will do it. As we have documented on this blog, the L.A. area has a lot of fixing to do. They can do all the "tolling" they want, they can add all the road capacity they want, but it won't make that much of a difference in the long run if all the other problems we have outlined on this blog are not fixed as well. People will continue to pour into Southern California and the additional flow created by "tolling" and extra capacity will go up in smog!
Tomorrow we will view and respond to Volume II of the Panel Discussion.
Hope you enjoyed it and learned something new. I did. Don't leave it up to the politicians, the experts, the pundits, the academics, the beauraucrats, the self-serving journalists (hawking you wares, huh? What's this? Oprah? ;-). They created the mess in the first place. As this panel discussion will show, they know the least about how to solve it.
L.A. Traffic.. you hearddd [From: ashleeee] [a girl telling visiting friend(s) that "this is normal."]
----------------------------------------------- Make it viral. Make it vital. Spread the word...
This guy, who goes by the name of "adamthelizard" on YouTube, and who has graciously allowed us to use his video here, is a Master Lanesplitter and he shows us how it's done on this cool video of his.
It may look dangerous, it may look risky, it may seem reckless, but from what I hear (comments on YouTube), it is perfectly legal (as it is to ride the motorcycle on the car pool or HOV lane), and HE ROCKS!
And he's ahead of the pack. One of the things that the panelists at the L.A. Press Club talked about (video entries to be posted soon), and priced above all else, was/is MOBILITY. Mobility is the one thing that L.A. traffic has reduced almost to zero. Well, "adamthelizard" show us that NOTHING -- traffic or no traffic -- absolutely NOTHING (except traffic lights, of course!) stands in the way of hismobility.
He rocks! Check it out:
Lanesplitting in Los Angeles [From: adamthelizard]
Ok...! It's time to let the "experts and pundits," the former beauraucrats, present academics and ever-lasting journalists have their say!
Guess what I found on YouTube?
"Traffic in L.A. Panel Discussion: The Ever-Lasting Gridlock?"
It took place on March 29, 2007 at the L.A. Press Club moderated by treasurer and board member, Rory Johnston. The panelists included:
-Tom Rubin, "former Administrator of Public Transport in Southern California." -James E. Moore II, "Professor of Engineering at USC, he's an expert on the technology side" (in Mr. Johnston's words) -Ted Balaker, "a journalist who has his particular views on the issues."
This video is the "Video News Advisory", and Mr. Johnston promises, or rather hopes, the following:
"We're hoping to really clarify the issues and come up with some solutions that nobody else has ever thought of, and then we'll be able to be driving with ease from here to eternity."
Mr. Johnston must be a tad facetious or disingenius because I have to tell you: I viewed and listened to the whole thing (all five video parts of the panel discussion) and I didn't hear a single thing that was new. I did hear a lot of clarifications on the federally-mandated and political roadblocks to improvement and a lot of clarifications "on the technical side" (the correlation between capacity and congestion), but I didn't hear anything new or inspiring or ground-breaking or enlightening.
Not to rain on anyone's parade and you can judge for yourself, but somehow, after listening to the whole panel discussion, I was left with the feeling that, if we could somehow, by magic, give these three panelists the power to do whatever they wanted to fix traffic in Southern California, the whole thing would end up just as it is now: a mess. I mean, come on, one of the panelists was a former beauraucrat, somebody, who, when he was in office, had the power and influence to make a difference. I didn't hear him take any responsibility for the current state of affairs or offer any truly enlightening or ground-breaking suggestions. Just more of the same. Actually, the one "solution" they all seem to agree on, "tolling," is the one I disagree with (but more on that later or see my posting Would taxing the Modern Hell (rush hour) turn it into the Modern Heaven (traffic-free cities)?).
But anyway, judge for yourself. I'll post all five video parts of the panel discussion and respond to each one individually.
Speaking of technology, we've got the latest technology--well, YouTube, courtesy of parent company Google--to deliver their message to you...
LA Traffic Panel Discussion - Video News Advisory
If you really want my opinion (don't answer that! it's rhetorical! ;-), the best thing about the whole thing, other than getting some kind of public discussion about the issue going, was the use of Jimi Hendrix's "Crosstown Traffic" as background music for this video clip. He was great! He wouldn't make a great L.A. driver with this attitude, but he reflects beautifully the way we all feel in traffic...
Crosstown Traffic by Jimi Hendrix
You jump in front of my car when you, You know all the time that Ninty miles an hour, girl, is the speed I drive You tell me it's alright, you don't mind a little pain You say you just want me to take you for a ride
You're just like crosstown traffic So hard to get through to you Crosstown traffic I don't need to run over you Crosstown traffic All you do is slow me down And I'm tryin to get on the other side of town
I'm not the only soul whos accused of hit and run Tire tracks all across your back I can see you had your fun But darlin' can't you see my signals turn from green to red And with you I can see a traffic jam straight up ahead
You're just like crosstown traffic So hard to get through to you Crosstown traffic I don't need to run over you Crosstown traffic All you do is slow me down And I got better things on the other side of town
